[154860] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (-Hammer-)
Sat Jul 14 16:23:32 2012
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:22:42 -0500
From: -Hammer- <bhmccie@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDA45F9A-2B48-48D5-A6B5-545214AC0214@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
<bashes head against wall>
Thank you all. It's not the protocol that hurts. It's rethinking the
culture/philosophy around it.
-Hammer-
On 7/14/12 3:20 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>They're a bad thing in IPv6.
>
>The only place for security through obscurity IMHO is a small round
>container that sits next to my desk.
>
>Besides, if you don't advertise it, a GUA prefix is just as obscure as a
>ULA prefix and provides a larger search space in which one has to hunt
>for it... Think /3 instead of /8.
>
>Owen
>
>On Jul 14, 2012, at 1:14 PM, -Hammer- wrote:
>
>> Guys,
>> The whole purpose of this is that they do NOT need to be global.
>> Security thru obscurity. It actually has a place in some worlds. Does
>>that
>> make sense? Or are such V4-centric approaches a bad thing in v6?
>>
>> On 7/13/12 8:41 PM, "Brandon Ross" <bross@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 13, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> keep life simple. use global ipv6 space.
>>>>>
>>>>> randy
>>>>
>>>> Though it is rare, this is one time when I absolutely agree with
>>>>Randy.
>>>
>>> It's even more rare for me to agree with Randy AND Owen at the same
>>>time.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM:
>>> BrandonNRoss
>>> +1-404-635-6667 ICQ:
>>> 2269442
>>> Schedule a meeting: https://tungle.me/bross Skype:
>>> brandonross
>>>
>>
>>
>
